Comments on: Gospel of John http://earthpages.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/gospel-of-john/ Putting it all together Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:45:45 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: MC http://earthpages.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/gospel-of-john/#comment-1339 MC Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:44:25 +0000 http://earthpages.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/gospel-of-john/#comment-1339 I didn't falsely imply anything. I simply stated what some people believe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship I didn’t falsely imply anything. I simply stated what some people believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship

]]> By: Jim http://earthpages.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/gospel-of-john/#comment-1327 Jim Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:21:50 +0000 http://earthpages.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/gospel-of-john/#comment-1327 Lets compare what the Bible says to what you wrote: Jn 21:24: "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." -- THAT is what the Bible says. Clearly NO ONE is identified in this verse. While this verse does identify the unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the author of the work this verse most certainly does NOT say who this person was and it never even mentions John. Yet you falsely implied that this verse would justify teaching the man-made tradition that says this person was John for you wrote: "Though anonymous, it’s often believed to have been written by John the son of Zebedee, the “beloved disciple” of Jesus (John 21:24)." Man-made tradition aside, the truth is there is not even a single verse of scripture that would justify teaching the John idea. The John tradition is founded on NON-BIBLE sources and it is unbiblical. The facts in the Biblical record prove that whoever this person was he was not John. Lets compare what the Bible says to what you wrote:

Jn 21:24: “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.” — THAT is what the Bible says.

Clearly NO ONE is identified in this verse. While this verse does identify the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” as the author of the work this verse most certainly does NOT say who this person was and it never even mentions John.

Yet you falsely implied that this verse would justify teaching the man-made tradition that says this person was John for you wrote: “Though anonymous, it’s often believed to have been written by John the son of Zebedee, the “beloved disciple” of Jesus (John 21:24).”

Man-made tradition aside, the truth is there is not even a single verse of scripture that would justify teaching the John idea. The John tradition is founded on NON-BIBLE sources and it is unbiblical. The facts in the Biblical record prove that whoever this person was he was not John.

]]>